Eloquence

I was watching the Republican primary debate the other night and witnessed varying degrees of eloquence exhibited. (An online dictionary defines eloquence as “the practice of art of using language with fluency and aptness”.) Marco Rubio was quite eloquent while The Donald was not. Ted Cruz, a former debate team champion, was somewhere in the middle. Listening to all the words pouring forth made me reflect back on thoughts I had regarding the ability to communicate and the value of that skill. Granted there is great value in being able to effectively transfer thoughts from one’s mind into someone else’s. In some enterprises there is the added challenge of convincing the listeners that your thoughts have truth attached to them and convert the listener to your way of thinking. There is an old saying that a great salesman can “sell ice to an Eskimo” and debate teams are not judged on the gist of their argument but rather on their ability to argue a point. So here is my dilemma. Let’s say I am an administrator heading an organization where I rely on others for the in depth understanding of key technologies. Within the staff I have engineers and scientists who are great communicators and others who, though they may be brilliant, lack these skills. My contention is that unless the best minds also have the most eloquent tongues, the organization is suboptimal. If I don’t really have an in-depth understanding of the technology (which is often the case in organization headed by marketing or financial people), when presented with options based on two contradictory opinions, the person who argues their point better will most often win their case though the less eloquent person may have a stronger point, it will be pushed to the sideline. The success of the organization is then limited to the technical skills of the most eloquent members of the staff. During a break in the debate I mentioned my argument on eloquence to a niece. She did not agree and added that what I was describing is a shortcoming of a weak organization. I think she is correct but then the question becomes; how do we change the organization to overcome this weakness? A couple of solutions come to mind. 1. If the business is heavily dependent on some technology, ensure that the head of the organization is an expert in the technology. 2. Have a high ranking technical expert on the staff to evaluate all such debates, select the best case and make recommendations to the head. 3. Create teams comprised of both strong technologists and eloquent individuals who will then be counted on to present the team’s case. Surely the solution is not to only hire eloquent experts and not hire experts who cannot adequately argue their case. Getting back to the presidential debates where we observed a range of verbal skills. Unfortunately, for a position as important as President, we have to go with the most undesirable solution above. The person has to have the intellect to understand the complexities of issues they will face and have the skill to not only articulate them, but to convince others of the merits of their interpretation. Yes, we have to listen for the poetry in their words but we must also scrutinize the wisdom of their meaning. In the end it will be our skill in choosing our leaders, judging both style and substance, that will determine the degree to which we as a nation will succeed or fail.

Respect or Fear

I have often seen scenes on TV or in the movies where a gangster or a bully announce that they want someone’s respect and then shoot or beat them up because they didn’t get it. I would like to have the courage, in a circumstance where I am confronted by a tough guy demanding my respect, to say: “You don’t really want my respect, you want my fear. To gain my respect, or for that matter anyone else’s, you need to have demonstrated a level of nobility, either through your actions or lifestyle, which to my knowledge you have not. So yes, I do fear you but have not seen any reason to respect you” Recently I have exchanged a few emails with a friend regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal and a foreign leader working our system to blow it up. In one response my friend mentioned that our president has no respect from the international community. I have also heard and read comments from our brethren on the right bemoaning the fact that we have lost the respect of the world because of our president’s weakness in dealing with our foes. Presidential candidates are proclaiming that if elected, under their leadership we will regain the respect we have lost during this administration. Like in the case above, here also I think they don’t understand the word respect. What they want is not for the world to respect us but to fear us and through this fear allow us to pursue our goals, noble or otherwise. We have by far the strongest military and one of the largest economies and I am sure we are adequately feared. Over the last several decades however, the respect, in the true sense of the word, has dwindled. In the middle of the last century we were setting the standards for governance, labor practices, law, medicine, education and infrastructure. Countries were struggling to rise to our level. Toward the end of last century and into the beginning of this, our infrastructure has crumbled, the health of our population has declined, we have one of the poorer primary education systems among the developed nations, we are allowing ourselves to be dragged down to the least common denominator in our labor practices and our governance is being questioned. (Though I must say our military has remained strong.) Yes, the world may fear us less, though I doubt it. But during Obama’s presidency we have regained some of the respect lost during the last few administrations. For us to get back to being the “gold standard” of the world will take more than just the skills of a president, though that’s crucial, it will take our collective will and the wisdom of our elected officials driving policies that get us back to being the most respected (I didn’t say feared) nation in the world.

Iran Nuclear Deal

I woke up this morning and while reading the news on my iPod, I saw that the President was holding a press conference regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I rushed down stairs before getting dressed to hear what he had to say. I was excited about the possibility of an agreement having been reached and was not disappointed. I have felt for a long time that Iran was the closest of all nations in the Middle East, maybe barring Israel, to becoming a true democracy. It has a political structure already in place, an educated population and natural resources. Though it is currently a theocracy, I feel that with the passing of time and the current Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an old man, the democracy movement will grow and succeed unlike Egypt’s and Libya’s where there was not a structure in place to take over the reins. The theocracy in Iran, with its philosopher kings (the ayatollahs) and the Guardians (the Revolutionary Guard) is modeled on Plato’s Republic. (The Supreme Leader following the revolution, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was a professor of philosophy in Paris and the world’s foremost authority on Plato.) With Khomeini gone, in another decade or so it will have outlived its novelty and fade away As to the quest for a nuclear bomb; I believe that none of the major powers, or at least the US really believed Iran was going to develop a nuclear bomb. I recall an interview of Ahmadinejad a few years ago. When asked about their effort to build a bomb, said that it is not Islamic to do so. With him being a politician, I didn’t pay much attention to it. On the other hand, when about a year ago the Ayatollah, in another interview said that an atomic bomb goes against the teachings of the Koran, I listened. The Ayatollah has, within Shia, the same standing as the Pope in Catholicism. Unlike the Sunni, who believe there is no intervening authority between them and god, the Shiites do. The Sunni are responsible for interpreting the teachings of the Koran and the stories about the life of Mohamed themselves. They can, and do, look to learned men for assistance in interpreting but if they don’t like that interpretation they can just go to another scholar. The scholars have no authority, whereas the Shiites believe that the word of the Ayatollah is sacred and inspired by God. Unlike Ahmadinejad, It would be very difficult for the Ayatollah to walk back his statement that the nuclear bomb is against the teachings of the Koran. Iran had nothing to lose since I believe they were not really going to build a bomb. In Iran the agreement was “greeted ecstatically by liberals and reformists, and with sullen resignation by hardliners”. There were celebrations in the streets of Tehran. To many, it represents a relief from everyday hardships brought on by the sanctions while to other this agreement facilitates engagement with the West, opening up commerce and further democratization. What did we gain? I believe it reduces the probability of another war in the Middle East forced on us by either hawks here or in Israel. It opens up Iran, bringing more balance into the region which is currently dominated by Israel and Sunni monarchies and military dictatorships. The opening of Iran expands the market for western goods (as I am writing this Germany is sending a trade mission to Tehran) and services, facilitates the cooperation necessary to fight against ISIS and restores one of our listening post on Russia, a role Iran played before being proclaimed a part of the “Axis of Evil” by President Georg W. Bush. One of the main issues raised by the opponents of the Deal is that the repeal of sanctions will bring a hundred billion dollars into Iran’s treasure chest to be used to fund “terrorist” organizations. First of all, President Obama in his morning address pointed out that our contribution to the sanctions is only about 1/3rd, and even if we did not lift them the other nations would so that Iran would still fatten its treasury. Furthermore, an argument within Iran for the Deal was that the influx of capital would improve the economy which the sanctions have stifled and thus the lives of everyday people. If that was not to happen, the movement toward democratization would be greatly accelerated and I believe there would be riots in the streets. The President acknowledged that the Agreement would not change the relationship between Iran and “terrorists”. I would like to question the assignment of this category to Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas which is the governing body in Gaza has a local agenda which is to liberate the West Bank from an oppressive occupation and to rid itself of an Israeli blockade (by international law, a blockade constitutes an act of war). Given the brutal nature of both, any people in these circumstances would use whatever means to rid themselves of it. Israel, while under British rule, conducted what would today be called acts of terrorism to rid itself of the British yoke and Golda Meyer would be branded a terrorist. Kenya, during the Maumau uprising against British rule, led by Jomo Kenyatta who later became it’s prime minister, committed horrific acts against the British settlers. I suspect that even during our revolution we were thought of by the British as terrorists. Hezbollah also has a local agenda focused on protecting the Shiite minority within Lebanon from both Sunnis and Israelis. I quote from a recent BBC article: “In Lebanon, Western diplomats have for several years made no secret of the fact that they see Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a stabilizing factor, given the more deadly threat they perceive from radical Sunni Islam, especially the self-styled Islamic State.” Governments have historically intervened in internal affairs of countries they consider strategic to their interest, supporting their proxies as did Russia in the Ukraine, Chechnya and Hungary, China in Korea and Vietnam, the Brits all over the world, and we in South and Central America (Iran Contra scandal and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. So I am optimistic though I recognize that relationships between nations are very complex and fragile and that there is danger whenever the balance of power shifts. Time will tell.

Unintended Cosequences

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The other day I googled a person who I had some business encounters with during the telecom heydays. She was a financial executive at a large company, retired young, bought a yacht and sailed around the world. During the Google search I found she decided to return to her roots in Newfoundland and share some of her success with the community where she grew up. One of the first things she did was to set up a scholarship for local students. Community leaders said they really appreciate her wanting to help but with the community’s financial woes, many people are leaving the fishing villages for jobs in the more industrialized parts of Canada and the scholarships would encourage more of the best and brightest to leave. This story made me think of a few other instances I have run across over the years where an obvious good could potentially backfire. About thirty of forty years ago I was watching a debate on PBS between two groups with one advocating banning smoking in public places and the other opposed. During the debate someone from the “ban smoking” side pointed out that if everyone stopped smoking, life expectancy would go up by some number of years. A crusty old guy from the other side very calmly said; can you imagine what would happen if the life expectancy suddenly went up that much. Of course continuing promoting smoking to keep the population growth at a reasonable level is a poor argument but nevertheless, a rapid rise in population would present problems catching society unprepared to feed and care for its suddenly increased number of elders. Around the same time I heard another debate where one side argued that providing food aid was a bad idea and the other side argued, not that it was a good idea but it wasn’t as bad as the others claimed. On the face of it, this seems like a ridiculous debate. Of course feeding the hungry is a good thing. The side arguing against, pointed out a few shortcomings with providing food aid. In most instances truly starving people didn’t have the strength to get to the distribution centers. In cases of droughts the outputs of agriculture were very low and farmers would give up whatever farming they could do to walk for days to get the donated food. In some places the food was used for bribes and even sometimes to enslave people. Wheat products were provided to areas that could not grow wheat and in time people became accustomed to wheat which they then had to buy from the countries that donated them. One country, I believe it was in South America, outlawed foreign assistance because of the havoc it raised in the aftermath of an earthquake. By no means am I proposing that we encourage the early deaths or not feed the hungry and help the needy (although I think Ayn Rand maybe would). Human nature requires us to help, some of us only the deserving others all needy. I am just pointing out the multitude of interactions within societies are very complex and require well thought out solutions. Even then we will sometimes be wrong.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest - Part Three

In an earlier post on the subject I gave my answer to the Zen riddle: “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, is there a sound? My answer was that sound needs both an originator (the vibrating air created by a falling tree) and a sensor (our ear) along with the ability to process the sensation (the chemistry of our brain). In the post I expanded the answer saying that without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, only empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy swirling around.” Now I need to modify this, The other day I listened to a TED talk by Donald Hoffman on consciousness, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY, where he takes my understanding of reality as a bunch of tiny pieces of matter and energy in a vast area of emptiness, a step further, he proposes that even these are false images created by our senses and brain chemistry. Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist with a PhD from MIT in Computational Psychology, and author of 90 scientific papers and three books. In the talk he quotes Galileo: “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on…… reside in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be…. Annihilated.” Hoffman cites some ancient examples of dogma based on our sensors and ability to reason which, upon better information, were disproven. The world was thought to be flat, now we think it is round. The world is the center of the universe, here again we were wrong and the idea of matter and energy is also most likely wrong. He likens that our perceived reality to an icon on a computer screen. We interacts with the icon unaware of what happens in the hardware and software. His argument supports (at least in my mind) the notion that if there is an “absolute truth”, we don’t have the sensors or brain to understand it. Hoffman disagrees, believing we have the basic ability to get to the truth. I now need to modify my answer to “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?” Without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, NO empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy, only emptiness.

Income Inequality, another Perspective

The other day I was in Walmart and saw a young, deformed worker and it made me think about what would happen to him when Walmart raises its wages. I, along with most people, think that a higher minimum wage is a good thing. Unfortunately good intentions are too often accompanied by unintended consequences. For one thing, higher wages will bring individuals who can get higher wages now into competition with this young man. There will be more people vying for these jobs and employers, having a bigger pool to choose from, may hire fewer handicapped or otherwise less desirable (couldn’t think of a better word) individuals. Jobs currently held by the bottom rung of the work force will be taken by individuals a step further up on the ladder. Whatever the scenario of outcomes from higher minimum wages, unless we have full employment, I think more “less desirable” workers will not be able to find jobs. Though in principle I favor a higher minimum wage, I worry about what it will do to people like this young man. So what can we do about income inequality while minimizing unintended negative consequences? The gap in income is in part driven by the faster growth rate of income at the higher end of the wage scale and stagnation of wages at the lower end. The more rapid growth of wages at the higher end is in part the result of the overabundance (evidenced by very low interest rates) and thus lower value of capital. This, along with the increased value of talent, has given talent an edge over capital in the market place. The glut of capital though, also pushes higher low end wages, but is offset by global competition and technological innovation. Currently wages of whatever size are considered a corporate expense and as such reduce corporate taxes. A mechanism that would set a ceiling on (I imagine some sort of a sliding scale keyed off of the number of employees and maybe the nature of the business.) wages that can be considered an expense may be enough to offset the advantage of talent over capital in the market place. However, in this scenario, the market would still determine both the relative and absolute values of various skills. A way to increase the value of lower end wages is to increase the demand or reduce the supply of it. The increased revenue from the reduction of corporate tax deductions could be used to fund infrastructure projects thus increasing the demand for labor. There are other policy changes that would also contribute to increased demand, such as redefining the standard work day as consisting of say, 35 instead of 40 hours. After all 40 hours is pretty arbitrary. These types of initiatives would then allow for a rise in minimum wages, putting more buying power into people’s hands, would further increase the demand for labor. The increase in demand, by its nature would then reduce the supply. A further reduction of supply could be accomplished by reducing the number of two earner households. Rising costs without commensurate increases in wages has forced many women into the workforce. Policies like tax deductions for a stay at home parent during the early years of a child’s development would not only decrease the supply of labor, raising its value, but solve a number of social ills. The above initiatives, along with somehow allocating more of the economies gained through technological innovation to the lower end of the wage scale may move us toward full employment without increasing the competition for the handicapped man at Walmart. This will obviously need some government intervention though I don’t think an overwhelming amount. Market forces, if unimpeded by either government or special interests, drive for lower costs of inputs, a significant portion of which are wages, and higher prices of outputs and any adjustments to these forces need to somehow come from a source outside of the market. A key part of a government’s responsibility is to provide these adjustments for not only the benefit of the society as a whole, but to keep the market from self distructing.

What Should We Call ISIS

President Obama in recent appearances has tried to downgrade the term Islamic or islamist routinely used when talking about terrorism. I have sympathy with his quest, being of Muslim heritage, I have a “dog in this fight” or a “horse in the race” (depending of what part of the country one is from. However, I would approach it differently. I don’t have a problem with the name Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The fact of the matter is that ISIS, in its very name, by using the term State, announces that it is not a religious group but a geo-political entity and even goes so far as to identify the territory over which it intends to rule. The Islamic part of its name indicates the basic beliefs of its followers (though I would have liked a little more specificity). An approach I would use to separate Islam from terrorism, is to emphasize this fact. This is easier said than done. There are groups interested in the opposite, trying to tie terrorism to the religion practiced by over a billion people across the world. Israel is one such. It feels the decades long unprecedented and unprecedented brutal occupation of the West Bank, which allows it to continue to expand settlements, and drive out Palestinians needs to be perpetuated until they have enough land and there are few enough Arabs to have a truly Jewish State. This position, strongly opposed by most Muslims and only halfheartedly supported by the US, has an interest in having all Muslims painted with the “terrorist “brush. The more evil Muslims appear, the less evil does the occupation. The Republican Party, though for different reasons, has the same interest. In a quest to expand its base, since economic conservatism doesn’t give them enough headcount to gain power, they have a multipronged strategy to expand their electorate to include individuals whose financial interests are not in alignment with Republican economic policies (Lower Middle Class). To that end it uses the so called “Southern Strategy”, values politics, xenophobia and fear. The various conflicts in the middle-east gives them a tool whereby they stoke the fires of fear and xenophobia by painting Muslims as dangerous people. It is not enough to rile people against the actual terrorists. The notion of a bunch of Arabs with guns is in itself not too scary, but a billion Muslims with their Sharia overrunning this country certainly is. So how do you separate terrorism from Islam, or for that matter any religion. As mentioned above, stress the economic and geo-political goals of these groups pointing out that throughout history, kings, emperors and leaders of all stripes have used religion as a means of rallying the masses. Point out that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda originally known as Uganda Peoples Democratic Christian Army, designated as a terrorist organization, hasn’t turned the World against Christianity. It is recognized as a revolutionary group with an agenda whose leader proclaims them as fighters for their God. The Jewish Defense League, committed to do” whatever” is necessary to defend Jews, also designated a terrorist group, has committed atrocities including burnings and vandalizing Mosques, not only in Israel and Palestine but also here in the US. Certainly Jews here and elsewhere are not expected to explain that the JDL does not represent their views. But then, the two don’t have a media, a country and a political group interested in painting them as representing Christianity or Judaism. Another way is to clarify the difference in terms I discussed in a previous post “Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East”. Educate people on the differences within Islam, in particular Wahhabism and within it the history of the Salafi movement and its subsequent splintering into groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party (Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida was such a splinter). Teach the history of the Middle-east. Maybe then, people will come to look at revolutions and conflicts within Islam through the same lens as the conflict during the Reformation, not as a Christian thing, but speak of a war between Catholics and Lutherans.